Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Venus is hotter than Mercury?!? > Page 16

Page 16 of 28

28-02-2020 20:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 25c...Claiming to know the mean temperature to 0.25 degrees over 200 million square miles is certainly debateable. ...deleted Mantras 5...33b...22...31...25c...25g...25c... It is not debatable. It is math. Math is not debatable. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-02-2020 20:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	duncan61 wrote: One professor when asked about the placing of the reading devices near urban areas admitted they fudge the data to allow for these things.If you fudge a bit how does that work.Same dude when asked about melting ice at the Arctic claimed it was a now few degrees warmer then the questioner declared it was 1.8 f warmer at this particular glacier and this bloke actually said well its warmer in other areas.how can that be trusted???When asked was he exaggerating he shook his head and went no no.The questioner was an elderly gentleman and he had been following this particular glacier melting all his life and had recently been there it is melting at the same rate it always has been.wake up people It obviously can't. Temperatures on the surface can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile. This can happen across weather fronts, compression waves form by wind over mountains, transitions from water to land, etc. Most of Earth's surface has no thermometers at all. With the number of claimed thermometers in use by NASA (the larger claim), and assuming the data isn't fudged at all, this leaves one thermometer to measure an area the size of Virginia. The margin of error is a calculated value from the variance of data, not the data itself. Using statistical math, the margin of error is larger than the total spread of observed temperatures on Earth. In other words, NASA is guessing. So is NOAA. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth with the instrumentation we have available. We can't even come up with a measure the temperature of the surface. Any average without the margin of error is meaningless. Anyone that tells you they know the temperature of the Earth is lying. Tmiddles is trying to declare the temperature of Venus using a single thermometer. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-02-2020 21:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:First of all relax duncan. That ITN/IBD have been slinging BS doesn't prove AGW is a real crisis. The predetermined conclusion to your "search" is safe. Venus is so much hotter than it's equilibrium temperature, +500C., we can be very confident of that simple fact even though we've only had a dozen landers measure it directly. @Duncan, do you understand tmiddles' argument? Does his claim appear to be scientific ... or is he claiming that "we can be very confident" of this belief and that we should just accept it on faith? Has tmiddles laid out sufficient science ... to your satisfaction ... to show that this really cannot be shown to be false? ... or do you think that his belief might very well be false? Question: has tmiddles' offered any science ... or has he offered only interpretations of signs and omens (i.e. evidence)? What is your read of tmiddles' preaching? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-02-2020 23:11
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: No, I open with the laws of aerodynamics, .... Do you ever present the empirical proof of a bumble bee flying? What if you told me bumble bees can fly in accordance with the laws of aerodynamics and I said "No they can't"? Shouldn't you nail down that I actually know bumblebees can in fact fly? What if I refused to acknowledge they can fly but just said RQAA over and over? Into the Night wrote: Observation is not a proof. It's not nothing. You don't get much of anything that's a 100%. You could be dreaming right now. If you want to speculate like that there is no stopping you. IBdaMann wrote: Question: has tmiddles' offered any science ... Always questions and never answers. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Venus is so much hotter than it's equilibrium temperature, +500C., we can be very confident of that simple fact even though we've only had a dozen landers measure it directly. No argument presented. Yeah, it's right there, proving you wrong. Of course you can pretend it's not. Venus disproves one of your primary positions the last 5 years on this board. Your rebuttal is to pretend it doesn't. As ITN say's: No argument presented. And one more ITN reminder: Into the Night wrote: You have the data... You no longer have an excuse to evade the conversation. Stop calling people names and proceed with your discussion.....You have been EVADING a sensible conversation by ...demanding data to be formatted in a particular way...Start having a discussion about the meaning of the data you have! From his thread, the Data Mine "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 28-02-2020 23:55
29-02-2020 01:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: No, I open with the laws of aerodynamics, .... Do you ever present the empirical proof of a bumble bee flying?...deleted Mantras 20j..20...22...16b...29...16a...20e1...25c...37c...25g...5..17...4c... Observations are not a proof. There is no such thing as an 'empirical proof'. Mantra 22. No argument presented. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

29-02-2020 01:52
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Observations are not a proof. There is no such thing as an 'empirical proof'. So you still have no rebuttal. Also the above statement you've made is wrong. As Richard P. Feynman says so well "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." While a hypothesis can never be proven correct it CAN be proven wrong. As your misuse of the 1st LTD has been by the temperature on Venus. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
29-02-2020 06:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Observations are not a proof. There is no such thing as an 'empirical proof'. So you still have no rebuttal. So you still have no argument. tmiddles wrote: Also the above statement you've made is wrong. His statement is correct. It's not his fault you don't know the difference between an open functional system and a closed one. tmiddles wrote:As Richard P. Feynman says so well "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." You are conflating falsification of a falsifiable theory with religious confirmation of an unfalsifiable theory. You err in this manner because you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know what you are talking about because you are only here to preach your unfalsifiable religion. tmiddles wrote:While a hypothesis can never be proven correct Oh really? The Pythagorean Theorem was proven correct. tmiddles wrote: As your misuse of the 1st LTD has been by the temperature on Venus. Nope. Your violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics is mandatory dogma of your religion. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-02-2020 07:19
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Observations are not a proof. There is no such thing as an 'empirical proof'. So you still have no rebuttal. So you still have no argument. tmiddles wrote: Also the above statement you've made is wrong. His statement is correct. It's not his fault you don't know the difference between an open functional system and a closed one. tmiddles wrote:As Richard P. Feynman says so well "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." You are conflating falsification of a falsifiable theory with religious confirmation of an unfalsifiable theory. You err in this manner because you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know what you are talking about because you are only here to preach your unfalsifiable religion. tmiddles wrote:While a hypothesis can never be proven correct Oh really? The Pythagorean Theorem was proven correct. tmiddles wrote: As your misuse of the 1st LTD has been by the temperature on Venus. Nope. Your violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics is mandatory dogma of your religion. . Son, one day you'll understand why Venus is hotter than Mercury. But please don't ask me to watch your kids for you, ok?
29-02-2020 08:49
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (142)	I don't why these guys keep saying that tmiddles is providing no argument. His argument seems pretty straightfoward to me. Venus has a temperature much higher than its effective tempertaure (the tempertaure of the planet if it were heated only by solar radiation). The surface of Venus is about 740K which corresponds to a radiance of 17,000 W/m² and the total solar flux is about 2,600 W/m² (which is much lower when you account for albedo). That is a difference of 14,000 W/m². Where is this extra energy coming from, needed in order to make up for this shortfall? The possibilities here are: the measurements of the temperature of Venus were wildly wrong, the calculation of the total solar flux of Venus is wrong, or your understanding of the physcial world is, well, not so good. Nathan-D Edited on 29-02-2020 08:49
29-02-2020 18:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 22...23...10 (philosophy<->data)...37c...20a1...25c...29... No argument presented. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-02-2020 18:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	One Punch Man wrote: I don't why these guys keep saying that tmiddles is providing no argument. ...deleted Mantras 25c...25k...25g...25k...25g...20f...20a1...25c... The possibilities here are: the measurements of the temperature of Venus were wildly wrong, the calculation of the total solar flux of Venus is wrong, or your understanding of the physcial world is, well, not so good. It is not possible to measure the temperature of Venus. It is not possible to measure the albedo of Venus. and your understanding of thermodynamics and mathematics is not so good. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-02-2020 18:49
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Your point is also true for maximum temperatures on the moon and mercury with no atmosphere . Where does mercury the moon and venus get the extra power? Power is not energy units are joules/sec, energy is power integrated over time expressed in J (joules). Venus recieves twice the energy of mercury per solar day. I agree your understanding of the physical world is wrong.
29-02-2020 19:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Bode wrote: Your point is also true for maximum temperatures on the moon and mercury with no atmosphere . Where does mercury the moon and venus get the extra power? Power is not energy units are joules/sec, energy is power integrated over time expressed in J (joules). Venus recieves twice the energy of mercury per solar day. I agree your understanding of the physical world is wrong. Planets are round. They get and dissipate energy continuously. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-02-2020 19:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	James___ wrote:Son, one day you'll understand why Venus is hotter than Mercury. But please don't ask me to watch your kids for you, ok? Did you need me to ask my kids to watch you one of these days? I don't mind asking. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-02-2020 20:06
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Correct energy input at any point on the surface of a rotating planet Is sinusiodal durring the day and Zero durring the night

29-02-2020 21:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	One Punch Man wrote: Venus has a temperature much higher than its effective tempertaure (the tempertaure of the planet if it were heated only by solar radiation). That is an assertion by subjunctive. Within the scientific method, you only get to use observations. You don't get to claim what something "should be" and then use that subjunctive as you would an observation. This argument by subjuntive is false by its nature and has been explained to tmiddles many times, and then many more times, and because I don't learn from my mistakes, I nonetheess continue to explain. tmiddles keeps proposing this type of argument in the hopes that it will one day transform from a flagrant fallacy into a valid assertion. That transformation has not yet occurred. One Punch Man wrote: The surface of Venus is about 740K If you are talking about the bottom of Venus' atmosphere then you need to be talking about the temperatureS (plural), you need to state your margin of error AND explain it, and your explanation necessarily needs to involve the Ideal Gas Law ... none of which I am seeing. Your assertion is discarded. One Punch Man wrote: ... which corresponds to a radiance of 17,000 W/m² and the total solar flux is about 2,600 W/m² (which is much lower when you account for albedo). Science is not religion. Religion is not science. Science uses the "emissivity" term while the term "albedo" is used by religious dogma. Watching for these terms helps one understand the context of the speaker. You do not know the emissivity of Venus and you don't know Venus' average planetary temperature. You are committing errors 20)o and 31) of the The Official List: 20) Science Denial o) data or assertion by subjunctive (what something "should" be) 31) Claims Knowledge via Omniscience or Fabrication Fallacy or the tmiddles declaration of "What We Know" One Punch Man wrote: Where is this extra energy coming from, needed in order to make up for this shortfall? Exactly. tmiddles is preaching the classic warmizombie dogma that is so effective at leading the gullible to conclude that Greenhouse Effect is, in fact, a magickal energy source that creates energy in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Recap: From where does that additional energy come you ask? Why, Greenhouse Effect manufactures it in order to increase the temperature. Voila! It's all so simple. ... or in other words, error 20)a of The Official List: 20) Science Denial a) Violation of Thermodynamics One Punch Man wrote: The possibilities here are: the measurements of the temperature of Venus were wildly wrong, the calculation of the total solar flux of Venus is wrong, or your understanding of the physcial world is, well, not so good. In showing that you are not to be outdone by tmiddles, you have efficiently committed multiple fallacies in your closing statement. Well done! You managed to efficiently weave fallacies 1), 3), 5) 20) j, 25) c & f, 27), 37) c, 38), 38)a of the The Official List into your final sentence: 1) Ad Hominem 3) Proselytizing Condescension or Missionary Insolence 5) Bulverism 20) Science Denial j) use of data as 'science'. 25)c) Margin of Error Failure (Statistics) f) Contrivance as Proof 27) Mockery 37) c) Proof by "the data" 38) a) Cops & Robbers Fallacy ("I shot you" "No you didn't") i.e. claiming your assertion/argument still stands because you dismissed the falsification/refutation thereof . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-03-2020 07:19
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	One Punch Man wrote:...Venus is about 740K...Where is this extra energy coming from,... This remains the question for ITN/IBD to address. As it stands their missuse of the 1st LTD is debunked and proven wrong. Into the Night wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of Venus. IBdaMann wrote:you don't know Venus' average planetary temperature. Always context with this staple of ITN's is important: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver. He's absolutely correct.... Question for ITN and IBD: Is it possible to measure ANYTHING "of Venus"? Atmospheric composition, pressure, wind speeds, anything??? Can we be confident in saying anything at all about Venus? Into the Night wrote: It is not possible to measure the albedo of Venus. IBdaMann wrote:You do not know the emissivity of Venus As already discussed we don't need to. We know, yes with absolute certainty, that the emissivity of Venus is less than 1.0, that it's albedo is more than 0.0, and that is enough. That leaves an enormous quantity of thermal energy totally unexplained by your incorrect application of the 1st LTD here. Bode wrote:...Venus receives twice the energy of mercury per solar day... Nothing you're saying makes sense to me Bode. The thermodynamics being discussed are for the object as a whole. That includes the dark side. Interesting comparison though is that the dark side of Venus, Venus "at night", is still hotter than Mercury is during the day. That's right: the hottest Mercury, which is 30 million miles closer, gets at "high noon" is still colder than Venus at night (462 C vs 427 C). IBdaMann wrote: One Punch Man wrote: Venus has a temperature much higher than its effective tempertaure (the tempertaure of the planet if it were heated only by solar radiation). That is an assertion by subjunctive. No it's not a subjunctive argument at all. He didn't say "should be" and neither did I. It is a comparison between the equilibrium temperature and the ground level temperature. There is nothing subjunctive in that. You know why we didn't say "Venus is hotter than it should be!" because it's not. Venus follows the actual laws of science. Venus isn't doing anything freaky, you and ITN in are with your misuse of the the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. You apply it to Venus and Earth as though they were isolated systems. It's a grade school goof up on your part (I suspect an intentional one). That's why there is nothing out there to corroborate your argument. It's also why you can't offer an explanation now. IBdaMann wrote: One Punch Man wrote: The surface of Venus is about 740K If you are talking about the bottom of Venus' atmosphere then you need to be talking about the temperatureS ... Did you have a point? Because I'm not seeing one. I will freely admit that I accepted this assertion from the CCCP and NASA scientists who actually did the work. Here is the data with the margin of error: You've admitted you don't allege they were being dishonest. You've yet to explain how or why you consider their work to be grossly incompetent. IBdaMann wrote:..."albedo" is used by religious dogma. You continue to make this case: that "albedo" is part of a warmazombie plot. I've got bad news for you: "The term albedo was introduced into optics by Johann Heinrich Lambert in his 1760 work Photometria." Do you allege wamazombie time machine shenanigans yet again IBD? Your objection has no apparent relevance to anything. You did however blather on about that and did not address the point OnePunchMan actually made, that 740K corresponds to a radiance of 17,000 W/m² and the total solar flux is about 2,600 W/m². You just used a semantic exercise of your own invention to skip responding. IBdaMann wrote: One Punch Man wrote: Where is this extra energy coming from,... Exactly. tmiddles is preaching ...a magickal energy source that creates energy in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. No you are just dead wrong in your application of the 1st LTD and Venus proves that. Did you have an explanation for the temperature on Venus? ITN doesn't. Not yet anyway. IBdaMann wrote:...you have efficiently committed multiple fallacies... From ITN and your personal rule book. And you've said nothing at all. No rebuttals. Except to pretend we know nothing. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 01-03-2020 07:26
01-03-2020 21:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 25g...7...20a1...20e1...29...25c...29...29...25k...25g...20a1...20e1...25g...25c...lie...25f...20m...22...10 (not subjunctive<->randU comparison)...10 (normalization<->margin of error)...lie...25a...20a1...20e1...20e2...20i...20h...1...4e...24...30...29...4a...4b...25c...25d...25e...29...20f...20a1...20e1...30...29...20a1...20e1...20e2...25g...25c...26...29...37c...29...25c...30...24...20e1...20a1...35b2...30...29...30... No argument presented. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 01-03-2020 22:00
02-03-2020 00:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: As it stands their missuse of the 1st LTD is debunked and proven wrong. You might be disappointed to learn that you are by no means the firt person to attempt to blame me for the inconvenience the 1st law of thermodynamics poses to your faith. You need to take the matter up with nature. tmiddles wrote: Question for ITN and IBD: Is it possible to measure ANYTHING "of Venus"? Atmospheric composition, pressure, wind speeds, anything??? Absolutely. This question of yours, of course, has been answered many times. You ask in accordance with 29) of Into the Night's Official List. 29) Question Already Answered (QAA) or "Asked and Answered" or the tmiddles Question of the Broken Record ----------------------- tmiddles wrote: Can we be confident in saying anything at all about Venus? There you go again getting flustered that you aren't allowed to impose your "fabrications via omniscience" onto others in the form of "confidence." The answer to your question is that you are naturally free to be as confident as you wish in the "conclusions" you fabricate. But how do you realistically expect to compel others to be "certain" of the conclusions that result from your scientific illiteracy and your mathematical incompetence? tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: It is not possible to measure the albedo of Venus. IBdaMann wrote:You do not know the emissivity of Venus As already discussed we don't need to. As already discussed you absolutely need to know the planet's emissivity if you wish to compute a temperature based on incident solar energy. tmiddles wrote: We know, yes with absolute certainty, that the emissivity of Venus is less than 1.0, that it's albedo is more than 0.0, and that is enough. All bodies have emissivity strictly between 0.0 and 1.0 ... and this fact alone is insufficient to compute a temperature. tmiddles wrote: That leaves an enormous quantity of thermal energy totally unexplained by your incorrect application of the 1st LTD here. There is zero "unexplained" energy. The good news is that you can still blame the 1st law of thermodynamics for your religion's woes. tmiddles wrote: Interesting comparison though is that the dark side of Venus, Venus "at night", is still hotter than Mercury is during the day. You don't know this. You are merely claiming omniscience in accordance with 31) of Into the Night's Official List. 31) Claims Knowledge via Omniscience or Fabrication Fallacy or the tmiddles declaration of "What We Know" ----------------------- tmiddles wrote: No it's not a subjunctive argument at all. It is entirely a subjunctive argument, one that assumes there is some other heat source besides the sun and compares observations to what it should be if the tempertaure of the planet were heated only by solar radiation. Do you understand the subjunctive? This argument is an example of 20)o of Into the Night's Official List. 20) Science Denial - o) data or assertion by subjunctive (what something "should" be) ----------------------- tmiddles wrote: He didn't say "should be" and neither did I. The operative wording is "if it were," i.e. conditions that are specifically not the case. This can only be used to falsify a theory, not to support or "confirm." tmiddles wrote: You continue to make this case: that "albedo" is part of a warmazombie plot. You continue to make the case that you cannot read for comprehension, and it's quite a compelling argument I must admit. tmiddles wrote: Did you have an explanation for the temperature on Venus? ITN doesn't. Not yet anyway. ... and we come full circle. The explanation for the temperature of Venus is its proximity to the sun and its emissivity. The explanation for the temperatures at the bottom of Venus' atmosphere involve the Ideal Gas Law. This question of yours, of course, has been answered many times. You ask in accordance with 29) of Into the Night's Official List. 29) Question Already Answered (QAA) or "Asked and Answered" or the tmiddles Question of the Broken Record ----------------------- tmiddles wrote:No rebuttals. Except to pretend we know nothing. You are merely complaining that others don't accept your claims by omniscience, citing 31) of Into the Night's Official List. 31) Claims Knowledge via Omniscience or Fabrication Fallacy or the tmiddles declaration of "What We Know" Nobody who rejects your claims of omniscience are somehow also claiming that nothing is known. That is just your contextomy fallacy, 16) of Into the Night's Official List. 16) Contextomy Fallacy - b) off topic wanderings . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-03-2020 11:11
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	tmiddles wrote: One Punch Man wrote:...Venus is about 740K...Where is this extra energy coming from,... This remains the question for ITN/IBD to address. And the answers are: Into the Night wrote:RQAA. IBdaMann wrote:...take the matter up with nature... .There is zero "unexplained" energy.... Nothing at all. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...Is it possible to measure ANYTHING "of Venus"? ... ... 29)..."Question Already Answered " No neither of you addressed that question, not remotely. Here's a direct question: The probes measured the composition of the atmosphere. Do you IBD or ITN think it reasonable (or use your own language) that we can be confident the atmosphere of Venus is composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, and traces of other gases, most notably sulfur dioxide? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Can we be confident in saying anything at all about Venus? .... the "conclusions" you fabricate. Are you under the impression I'm a cosmonaut? You can certainly accuse me of accepting the work done by the CCCP and NASA but giving me credit as an author is nonsense. IBdaMann wrote: All bodies have emissivity strictly between 0.0 and 1.0 ... and this fact alone is insufficient to compute a temperature. What's wrong with computing the equilibrium temp with an emissivity of 1.0 as a maximum? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:..., Venus "at night", is still hotter than Mercury is during the day. ...You are merely claiming omniscience in... No I'm claiming the CCCP and NASA are providing reliable information. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Did you have an explanation for the temperature on Venus? ITN doesn't. Not yet anyway. The explanation for the temperature of Venus is its proximity to the sun and its emissivity. The explanation for the temperatures at the bottom of Venus' atmosphere involve the Ideal Gas Law. ...answered many times. No never answered and especially not now. Why is Venus hotter than it's equilibrium temp? Does the ideal gas law create energy in violation of the 1st LTD? You have never remotely answered this question. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 02-03-2020 11:19
02-03-2020 18:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:No neither of you addressed that question, not remotely. I wrote multiple posts detailing exact answers to your questions ... which you ignored, nay, denied, and are now repeating those same questions as though I had not gone through the trouble. Your post is one big 29) of The Official List: 29) Question Already Answered (QAA) or "Asked and Answered" or the tmiddles Question of the Broken Record ---------- tmiddles wrote: What's wrong with computing the equilibrium temp with an emissivity of 1.0 as a maximum? Nothing. What's wrong with avoiding conflation of surface temperatures (plural) with the planet's average temperature (singular)? What's wrong with using the Ideal Gas Law where applicable? tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:..., Venus "at night", is still hotter than Mercury is during the day. ...You are merely claiming omniscience in... No I'm claiming the CCCP and NASA are providing reliable information. Neither has provided you a valid dataset. You don't even know what raw data is (how embarrassing is that?). tmiddles wrote: Why is Venus hotter than it's equilibrium temp? Why do you think it is, outside of your omniscience? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-03-2020 18:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 30...29...lie...25c...16...4b...25k...25g...29...4b...4e...25c...lie...29...22...25k...29...30...29... No argument presented. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-03-2020 00:43
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Question totally ignored by ITN/IBD: tmiddles wrote: Here's a direct question: The probes measured the composition of the atmosphere. Do you IBD or ITN think it reasonable (or use your own language) that we can be confident the atmosphere of Venus is composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, and traces of other gases, most notably sulfur dioxide? IBdaMann wrote: I wrote multiple posts ... Where?!? Just playing games as usual. You've got time to link to your website but not to the posts that prove me wrong? There is no plausible motive for that other than you're being full of it. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: What's wrong with computing the equilibrium temp with an emissivity of 1.0 as a maximum? Nothing. Great! So your objection on that point is set aside then. IBdaMann wrote:What's wrong with avoiding conflation of surface temperatures (plural) with the planet's average temperature (singular)? Who is doing that? What is your definition of "planet's average temperature"? You have never defined that, not even close. My understanding is that you have: A planet's "SURFACE" temperature, the collection of molecules that are first struck by radiance from beyond the planet, and the collection of molecules that are the last to emit radiance leaving the planet. A planet's temperature in a defined zone/region (I might say "Denver", and I might say 2 meters from ground level planet wide, or I might say the "Thermosphere" and define that as 500 and 1,000 km (311 to 621 miles) above our planet, planet wide). A planets total temperature: This must include ever molecule from the core of the planet out to the most distant molecules of it's outer atmosphere. IBdaMann wrote: What's wrong with using the Ideal Gas Law where applicable? Do you find it applicable? Go ahead. IBdaMann wrote:Neither has provided you a valid dataset. The total fraud you and ITN are guilty of in pretending you believe in "Valid Data" in any circumstance has been well exposed here: no data is valid for IBD You have had no rebuttal. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Why is Venus hotter than it's equilibrium temp? Why do you think it is, outside of your omniscience? Because thermal energy is absolutely "stored" in the conventional understanding of the word. ANY atmosphere will accumulate and "store" thermal energy. This is the "Greenhouse effect" as first described and discovered by Fourier. Incidentally Fourier died in 1830 and Tyndall's discovery of CO2 being a greenhouse gas was in 1859. The "Greenhouse effect" does not depend on CO2 nor was it defined based on CO2. Why is Venus so incredibly hot!? Because it's atmosphere is so incredibly massive is at least one big reason (possibly the only reason). It has the largest thermal battery in the solar system and yes there is always back radiation (because radiance goes in all directions). And no the ideal gas law does not create energy. That WOULD be a violation of the 1st LTD. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 03-03-2020 00:46
03-03-2020 02:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 29...25c...29...24...25c...7...22...30...paradox...29...30...lie...30...25c...25g...25f...10(not average<->average)...29...25c...17...30...7...20a1...20a2...20f...4c...20e2...20b...33b...34a...37a...29...22 (thermal battery)...20b...20a2...20k...16...20e2... No argument presented. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-03-2020 05:50
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Question totally ignored by ITN/IBD: tmiddles wrote: Here's a direct question: The probes measured the composition of the atmosphere. Do you IBD or ITN think it reasonable (or use your own language) that we can be confident the atmosphere of Venus is composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, and traces of other gases, most notably sulfur dioxide? Into the Night wrote: RQAA. Really ITN? That one too?
03-03-2020 21:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...29...24.. No argument presented. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-03-2020 01:40
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...deleted RQAA. I asked you and IBD a question ITN. Why don't you answer it.
04-03-2020 02:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...deleted RQAA. I asked you and IBD a question ITN. Why don't you answer it. RQAA The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-03-2020 02:15
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: RQAA Do you know how far Venus is from the Sun ITN?
04-03-2020 04:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: RQAA Do you know how far Venus is from the Sun ITN? Do you know how far Venus is from earth? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

04-03-2020 04:39
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: RQAA Do you know how far Venus is from the Sun ITN? Do you know how far Venus is from earth? We are both in orbit so that would be changing quite a lot. There is a range of furthest to closest of course. Can you ever answer a question?
04-03-2020 05:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: RQAA Do you know how far Venus is from the Sun ITN? Do you know how far Venus is from earth? We are both in orbit so that would be changing quite a lot. There is a range of furthest to closest of course. Can you ever answer a question? Is that a "no"? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-03-2020 05:23
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:There is a range of furthest to closest of course. Can you ever answer a question? Is that a "no"? It's a "YES" in that I could look it up. There IS, YES THERE IS, a RANGE of distance from Earth to Venus which is constantly changing. Did you want to know that information for some reason? Why did you ask? Very little in this universe of ours has an unchanging, fixed and exact quantity in any dimension. Most things have a range. I'm trying to understand your approach to "what is known" as well as ITNs. Is it that NOTHING IN KNOWN! and you cannot consider anything? Help us all out man. Edited on 04-03-2020 05:44
04-03-2020 06:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: RQAA Do you know how far Venus is from the Sun ITN? Not at the moment. It varies. I'd have to look up it's current position in its orbit and determine what part of its year it is in. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-03-2020 06:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:There is a range of furthest to closest of course. Can you ever answer a question? Is that a "no"? It's a "YES" in that I could look it up. There IS, YES THERE IS, a RANGE of distance from Earth to Venus which is constantly changing. Did you want to know that information for some reason? Why did you ask? You asked for the distance to the Sun, dumbass; not the distance to the Earth. Mantra 16b tmiddles wrote: Very little in this universe of ours has an unchanging, fixed and exact quantity in any dimension. Most things have a range. Nope. The current distance of Venus to the Sun is a single value. There is no range. Mantra 25j. tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantra 30...6...29... No arguments presented. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-03-2020 06:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Can you ever answer a question? Is that a "no"? It's a "YES" in that I could look it up. Awesome! It's a "yes" ... because you could "look it up" ... even though you can't. Everything is known. This is soooooo much better than living with things that are unknown. What did humanity ever do before omniscience? How did your candidate do on Super Tuesday? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-03-2020 07:48
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: ...you could "look it up" ... even though you can't.. Why can't the distance from Earth to Venus be looked up? I mean that's a fairly useless piece of information so maybe no one is doing all the math, but why are you acting as if that's impossible to figure out? Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...YES THERE IS, a RANGE of distance from Earth to Venus ... You asked for the distance to the Sun, dumbass; not the distance to the Earth. IBD asked that: IBdaMann wrote: ... how far Venus is from earth?... Into the Night wrote: The current distance of Venus to the Sun is a single value. There is no range. There is a range over time of course. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:....Do you know how far Venus is from the Sun ITN? Not at the moment. It varies. I'd have to look up it's current position in its orbit and determine what part of its year it is in. But you could do that? Give a single value for one instant in time based on what you can look up? As in that works for you. What about the range from closest to furthest in an orbit of Venus, and the average distance in a Venutian year? Edited on 04-03-2020 07:54
04-03-2020 16:01
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: I mean that's a fairly useless piece of information ... only because you aren't the one demanding answers in this case. My question is just as worthless as yours to basically the entire earth's population. So ... what's the distance between earth and Venus? tmiddles wrote: ... so maybe no one is doing all the math, but why are you acting as if that's impossible to figure out? I'm not. You are the one who claimed you could "look it up" and who is now shifting semantic goalposts to backpedal. When you "look up" the distance between earth and Venus, any units of measure will be fine, but cubits are preferred. tmiddles wrote: There is a range over time of course. ... but there is only one distance value at any given moment. What was the distance between earth and Venus at noon Zulu yesterday? Feel free to just "look it up." [hint: you can always cheat and just use omniscience ... and then say that your dog ate your reference URL] . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-03-2020 21:48
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: So ... what's the distance between earth and Venus? Oh you were hoping I would take time to figure it out, for no reason, on you demand? No I'm not going to do that. If you have a point then make it. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: There is a range over time of course. ... but there is only one distance value at any given moment. And your point is? Question still being dodged: tmiddles wrote: Here's a direct question: The probes measured the composition of the atmosphere. Do you IBD or ITN think it reasonable (or use your own language) that we can be confident the atmosphere of Venus is composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, and traces of other gases, most notably sulfur dioxide? "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 04-03-2020 21:50
04-03-2020 22:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 29...21...20e1 (Kepler's laws)...25...(denial of trigonometry)...30...16b...25j...29...25 (denial of trigonometry)... No argument presented. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 16 of 28

Join the debate Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?	129	19-12-2019 17:10
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof	5	09-10-2019 03:15
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus	88	26-09-2019 05:49
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus and Mercury	4	18-09-2019 22:37